alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

                             Washington, D.C. 20549

                             ----------------------

                                    FORM 8-K

                                 CURRENT REPORT


                     Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the
                         Securities Exchange Act of 1934


       Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported): December 9, 1999
                                                         ----------------


                             GRC INTERNATIONAL, INC.
              ----------------------------------------------------
             (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)


    Delaware                       1-7517                        95-2131929
---------------            ----------------------             ------------------
   (State of              (Commission File Number)            (I.R.S. Employer
  Incorporation)                                             Identification No.)


                    1900 Gallows Road, Vienna, Virginia 22182
               --------------------------------------------------
               (Address of principal executive office) (Zip Code)


                                 (703) 506-5000
                          -----------------------------
                         (Registrant's telephone number)

<PAGE>

Item 5.           Other Events.
                  ------------

On December 9, 1999, Chairman Joseph R. Wright, Jr. was re-elected,  and Richard
N. Perle was elected, to the Company's Board of Directors. On December 13, 1999,
President Gary L. Denman was re-elected, and Neal B. Freeman was elected, to the
Board of Directors. GRC International, Inc. also announced the settlement of two
previously  reported  lawsuits  filed by an individual  shareholder  against the
Company  and seven of its  directors,  all as  reported  in the  attached  press
release dated December 13, 1999.

                                       2
<PAGE>

Item 7.           Financial Statements and Exhibits.
                  ---------------------------------

         (c)               Exhibits.
                           --------

         Exhibit No.       Description
         ----------        -----------

             99.1          Press Release dated December 13, 1999.


Pursuant  to the  requirements  of the  Securities  Exchange  Act of  1934,  the
registrant  has duly  caused  this  report  to be  signed  on its  behalf of the
undersigned hereunto duly authorized.

                                GRC INTERNATIONAL, INC.



Date:    January 18, 2000       By: /s/ Thomas E. McCabe
                                    --------------------------------------------
                                    Thomas E. McCabe
                                    Senior Vice President, Director of Corporate
                                     Development, General Counsel & Secretary

                                       3
<PAGE>
---

Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report On Form
10-Q of Resource Group Inc. for the Quarter Ended May 31, 2009, I, Larry Lorenz,
President and Chief Executive Officer of Resource Group, Inc. hereby certify
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:

|1. | Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the Period Ended
      May 31, 2009, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
      15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                                             
|-- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          
|2. | The information contained in such Quarterly Report on
      Form 10-Q for the Period Ended May 31, 2009, fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
      Resource Group, Inc.

|By: | /s/ Larry Lorenz                     
|--- | -------------------------------------
|    | Larry Lorenz                         
|    | President and Chief Executive Officer

Dated: July 13, 2009

---
463 A.2d 36

#### Steele, Jr. et al. v. Landsittel v. Marsh Realty, Appellant.

Submitted February 24, 1983.

Carl Richard Schiffman, for appellant; Stanley Bruce Lederman, for Steele, appellees; and David Joseph Fasulo, for Landsittel, appellee.

Before SPAETH, BROSKY and MONTEMURO, JJ.

The order of the. lower court is affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-2165

LAVERNA BOSEMAN, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Columbia. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge.

(CA-96-650-3-19BD)

Submitted: November 6, 1997 Decided: November 19, 1997

Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Laverna Boseman, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Vance J. Bettis, GIGNILLIAT, SAVITZ & BETTIS, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order granting Defendant's motion for summary judgment on his complaint filed pursuant

to the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12213

(1994). We have reviewed the record and the district court's

opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning

of the district court. Boseman v. South Carolina Dep't of Transp.,

No. CA-96-650-3-19BD (D.S.C. July 29, 1997). We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Dragon, Karen E. (CDC/NIOSH/EID) 

From: NIOSH OCAS (CDC) 


Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2015 10:09 AM 


To: Dragon, Karen E. (CDC/NIOSH/EID) 


Cc: Diana, Sherri A (CDC/NIOSH/EID) (CTR) 


Subject: FW: Dr. Kotelchuck's presentation on RF - 032 


From: John Barton [mailto:' 


Sent: Monday, November 16, 2015 9:36 PM · 


To: NIOSH OCAS {CDC) <ocas@cdc.gov> 


Subject: Fwd: Dr. Kotelchuck's presentation on RF 


Please add the below statement to the public comments section 


Respectfully 


John Barton - Liver Cancer survivor · 


-----Oriainal Messaae----­


From: '. __ 


To: John Barton 


Sent: Mon, Nov 16, 2015 5:22 pm 


Subject: Re: Dr. Kotelchuck's presentation on RF 


HI_John, 


I know, I know. I can't add this to my presentation. I only have 10 minutes to present and I'm running right around 8 


minutes now. But, please consider doing this - forward this email to dcas@cdc.gov. Tell them you want this included in 


the public comments. If you decide to do this, I will add to my presentation that some Rocky Flats interviewees still object 


to the characterization of what has been discussed by the Work Group so far. 


Please let me know if you plan to do this. 


D 

On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 2:53 PM, John Barton· wrote: 

I am totally disgusted with the lack of professional knowledge shown by the board. 


We saw the Semi=Cabs and trailers worked on everyday at bid 440. Where are the release surveys done for final plant 


release? Most welders at RF had the TH-Mg welding sticks - I had to survey them for alpha and they were hot. 


Anyone in a material control area that had Np-237 and U-233 


had to do several audits - monthly semi-annual and annual- which entailed handling and reading, weighing each item 


and thus were exposed every year until the product was shipped out. 


1 
Urine analysis was done annually- results were never analyzed for either Np-237 or U-233 - only Pu-239, Am-241 and U238. Same with lung counts 

We never counted air samples on the hot side for beta-gamma emitters because we didn't have the counters. We held 

samples for 72 hours if they were above the limit and then assumed th"'V were Pu-239 half life - 25,000 yrs but Np-237 

has a 2,5 billion year half life. No alpha spec analysis until. . made a counter for his radon tests in bid 991 in 

the late 1990's. The isotopes were there but we the money hungry workers just lie about everything and are not 

scientists so our eye witness testimony doesn't count. 

John 

-----Original Message----­

-·-·-. 

Rodriguez, Jeremy 


<Jeremy. Rodriguez@mail. house. gov> 


Sent: Mon, Nov 16, 2015 2:03 pm 


Subject: Dr. Kotelchuck's presentation on RF 


Hello, 

This was just posted to NIOSH's website . 

. http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas/pdfs/abrwh/pres/2015/bd-rfpsec192-111915.pdf 

I haven't read it yet, but I doubt I'll change anything in my presentation. 

Thanks, 

D 


2
FOR PUBLICATION

JUDICIAL COUNCIL

OF THE NINTH CIRCUIT

IN RE COMPLAINT  Nos. 09-90276,

OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT 09-90277  and

09-90278

ORDER 

Filed January 12, 2011

ORDER

KOZINSKI, Chief Judge: 

Complainant, a pro se prisoner, filed a judicial misconduct

complaint against two district judges and a magistrate judge.

Instead of a brief statement of facts, he attached what appears

to be a complaint for a civil rights “tort action suit” he had

earlier tried to file with the Ninth Circuit’s clerk of court.

Complainants may not initiate a civil rights suit via the misconduct procedure. The Judicial Council is not a court and has

no jurisdiction over civil actions. Compare 28 U.S.C.

§ 332(d), with id. §§ 1331, 1343(a). And, because the brief

statement of facts required to file a misconduct complaint

“must be prepared specifically for the misconduct proceeding,” a complainant may not submit a document drawn up for

another purpose in lieu of such a statement. In re Complaint

of Judicial Misconduct, No. 09-90239, 2010 WL 5300813, at

*1 (9th Cir. Dec. 28, 2010).

Because complainant submitted no statement of facts setting forth his allegations of misconduct, he has made no allegations of misconduct and the complaint must be dismissed.

667
See 28 U.S.C. § 352(b)(1)(A)(i); In re Complaint of Judicial

Misconduct, 2010 WL 5300813, at *2.

The sole purpose of the misconduct complaint procedure is

to identify and investigate allegations of misconduct against

federal judges. The only possible outcome of the proceedings,

should misconduct be shown, is corrective or disciplinary

action against the judge. Complainant may not obtain any

kind of personal relief such as a change to the judge’s ruling,

even if misconduct is ultimately shown. His request for

appointment of a “Philadelphia lawyer” therefore is dismissed

as beyond the purview of these proceedings. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 354(a)(2); Judicial-Conduct Rule 11(a). The charges against

a state judge are likewise dismissed. See Judicial-Conduct

Rule 4.

DISMISSED.

668 IN RE COMPLAINT OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Overseas Private Investment Corporation

                    OPIC's Sunshine Act notice of its Public Hearing in Conjunction with each Board meeting was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     (Volume 73, Number 10, Page 2558) on January 15, 2008. No requests were received to provide testimony or submit written statements for the record; therefore, OPIC's annual public hearing scheduled for 3 p.m. on January 29, 2008 in conjunction with OPIC's January 31, 2008 Board of Directors meeting has been cancelled.                

*Contact Person for Information:*                     Information on the hearing cancellation may be obtained from Connie M. Downs at (202) 336-8438, via facsimile at (202) 218-0136, or via E-mail at                     *Connie.Downs@opic.gov.*

Dated: January 24, 2008.

Connie M. Downs,

OPIC Corporate Secretary.

[FR Doc. 08-373  Filed 1-24-08; 12:10 pm]

BILLING CODE 3210-01-M
EXHIBIT 32



<PAGE>

                                  CERTIFICATION

     In connection with the Annual Report of Energas Resources, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the year ending January 31, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, George G. Shaw, Chief
Executive and Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

     (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     (2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects the financial condition and results of the Company.



June 15, 2009                       By: /s/ George G. Shaw
                                        --------------------------------
                                        George G. Shaw, Chief Executive and
                                        Principal Financial Officer
463 A.2d 35

#### Hild v. Fotiadis, et ux., Appellants.

Petition for Allowance of Appeal Denied Oct. 17, 1983.

*637Argued April 6, 1983.

George Gershenfeld, for appellants; Samuel C. Stretton, for appel-lee.

Before SPAETH, WIEAND and HOFFMAN, JJ.

The order of the lower court is affirmed.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Bruce Wayne Suza v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01-17-00116-CR

Trial court case number: 77839-CR

Trial court: 412th District Court of Brazoria County

Appellant’s first amended brief, filed on February 7, 2018 in the above-referenced 

appeal, contained “sensitive data” as defined by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure

9.10(a)(3). The disclosure of this information is prohibited by article 57.02(h) of the Code of 

Criminal Procedure. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 57.02(h); see also TEX. CODE CRIM. 

PROC. art. 57.01(4).

Because appellant’s counsel already filed a second amended brief, the Court STRIKES

the appellant’s first amended brief, filed on February 7, 2018, which has been removed from

this Court’s external website. 

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Jennifer Caughey_______________________________________

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: February 8, 2018
Division of Compensation Analysis and 

Support

Program Evaluation Report

Document Number: DCAS-PER-039

Effective Date: 1/7/2013

Revision No. 0

Baker Perkins TBD Revision Page 1 of 1

Author: Signature on file Date: 1/7/2013 Dave Allen, HP Team Leader

Approval: Signature on file Date: 1/7/2013 

 J.W. Neton, Associate Director for Science

Supersedes: None

RECORD OF ISSUE/REVISIONS

ISSUE 

AUTHORIZATION 

DATE

1/7/2013

EFFECTIVE 

DATE

1/7/2013

REV. NO. 

0

DESCRIPTION

New document to determine the effect 

on previously completed claims due to 

revision to DCAS-TKBS-0005.

1.0 Description

Revision 1 of the Technical Basis Document for Baker-Perkins Company Saginaw, 

Michigan (DCAS-TKBS-0005) was issued on 5/01/2012. The previous version (revision 

0) was issued on 2/17/2011. Prior to that, dose estimates for Baker-Perkins used 

Appendix P of Battelle-TBD-6001 which was issued 9/14/2007. Also, some BakerPerkins dose reconstructions were completed prior to that using a complex wide 

overestimating method.

2.0 Issue Evaluation

Several changes in the methods used to reconstruct doses at Baker-Perkins resulted in 

both inhalation and external doses being higher for some job categories when compared 

to previous methods. Since only 8 claims have been completed for this site, each with a 

probability of causation below 50%, all 8 were reevaluated using revision 1 of the TBD. 

Therefore, no additional consideration of the changes is necessary.

3.0 Plan for Resolution or Corrective Action

Internal and external dose was recalculated for all eight of the Baker-Perkins claims using 

all currently approved methods. The resulting probability of causation was less than 45% 

for each of the eight claims with the highest less than 15%. The probability of causation 

increased for 3 of the claims, but decreased for the other 5. 

As a result of this review, the revision to DCAS-TKBS-0005 did not result in the 

probability of causation of any previously completed claims rising to greater than 50%. 

A listing of those claims evaluated and their final disposition will be forwarded to the 

Department of Labor.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 15 (Wednesday, January 23, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 4015]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 08-235]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL CREDIT UNION ADMINISTRATION


Meeting; Sunshine Act

TIME AND DATE: 10 a.m., Thursday, January 24, 2008.

PLACE: Board Room, 7th Floor, Room 7047, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, 
VA 22314-3428.

STATUS: Open.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 1. Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: 
Parts 708a and 708b of NCUA's Rules and Regulations--Mergers, 
Conversion from Credit Union Charter, and Account Insurance 
Termination.
    2. Interest Rate Ceiling Determination under Section 107(5) of the 
Federal Credit Union Act.

RECESS: 11 a.m.

TIME AND DATE: 11:15 a.m., Thursday, January 24, 2008.

PLACE: Board Room, 7th Floor, Room 7047, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, 
VA 22314-3428.

STATUS: Closed.

Matters To Be Considered: 
    1. One (1) Administrative Action under Sections 205, 207, and 208 
of the Federal Credit Union Act. Closed pursuant to Exemptions (8), 
(9)(A)(ii), and (9)(B).
    2. One (1) Administrative Action under Section 206 of the Federal 
Credit Union Act. Closed pursuant to Exemptions (6), (7), and (9)(B).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Rupp, Secretary of the Board, 
Telephone: 703-518-6304.

Mary Rupp,
Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 08-235 Filed 1-18-08; 10:48 am]
BILLING CODE 7535-01-M
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In
connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Spectrum Brands, Inc. (the Company) for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Kent J. Hussey, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of the Company.



|       |  |                        
|------ |  | -----------------------
|       |  | /s/ Kent J. Hussey     
|Name:  |  | Kent J. Hussey         
|Title: |  | Chief Executive Officer

Date: December 29, 2009

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by
the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or otherwise subject to liability under that section. This certification shall not be deemed incorporated by reference in any filing under the Securities
Act or Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.

A signed original of
this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by
Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
The Board of Directors and Shareholders
Davis Series, Inc.:

In planning and performing our audits of the financial statements of Davis
Opportunity Fund, Davis Government Bond Fund, Davis Government Money Market
Fund, Davis Financial Fund, Davis Appreciation & Income Fund, and Davis Real
Estate Fund (the Funds), comprising the Davis Series, Inc., for the year ended
December 31, 2004, we considered their internal control, including control
activities for safeguarding securities, in order to determine our auditing
procedures for the purpose of expressing our opinion on the financial
statements and to comply with the requirements of Form N-SAR, not to provide
assurance on internal control.

The management of the Funds is responsible for establishing and maintaining
internal control. In fulfilling this responsibility, estimates and judgments by
management are required to assess the expected benefits and related costs of
controls. Generally, controls that are relevant to an audit pertain to the
entity's objective of preparing financial statements for external purposes that
are fairly presented in conformity with accounting principles generally
accepted in the United States of America. Those controls include the
safeguarding of assets against unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition.

Because of inherent limitations in internal control, error or fraud may occur
and not be detected. Also, projection of any evaluation of internal control to
future periods is subject to the risk that it may become inadequate because of
changes in conditions or that the effectiveness of the design and operation may
deteriorate.

Our consideration of internal control would not necessarily disclose all
matters in internal control that might be material weaknesses under standards
established by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States).
A material weakness is a significant deficiency, or combination of significant
deficiencies, that results in more than a remote likelihood that a material
misstatement of the annual or interim financial statements will not be
prevented or detected. However, we noted no matters involving internal control
and its operation, including controls for safeguarding securities, that we
consider to be material weaknesses as defined above as of December 31, 2004.

This report is intended solely for the information and use of management, the
board of directors of Davis Series, Inc., and the Securities and Exchange
Commission and is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other
than these specified parties.

KPMG LLP

Denver, Colorado
February 4, 2005